Aspects Of Anna's Behavior

If I was doing this study, my hypothesis would be that “people, who receive an aversive stimulus every time they give an incorrect answer, will try harder to get the correct answer than those who do not receive anything”. My independent variables, which are the variables that researcher manipulates, would be the electric shocks and the emotional motivation; and my dependent variable, which is the variable that is tested and measured, would be the members’ results.

The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher being the real subject and the learner is merely an actor. Both were told that they would be involved in a study that tests the effects of punishment on

Philip (2009) to try and see what was being said about prison treatment was true, this was called the Stanford prison experiment. This experiment only lasted 6 days due to the circumstances versus 6 weeks. Zimbardo had to find out whether the prisons were brutal due to the guards or due to the environment. It was clear that the role of the guards was the issue and not the environment. This was discovered when a sample was chosen from the population. Each induvial was set up to be a guard or a prisoner at random. In this study researchers got see the unfortunate power of social situations. Once prisoner and guard roles were assigned each group were told that they were being watched by the researcher and his colleagues, the guards were to not hit the prisoners, and debriefed about the experiment. Although all this was told the guards took situations into their own hands and the power took over. The guards began simply viewing them as prisoners and the prisoners began to fear the guards. It is important to note the researcher did not intervene but continued to observe when the hitting was taking place. This is particularly important because not only are the guards fitting the rod but the researcher is at fault for the fundamental attribution error but viewing the situation for what it

Participants in the mere exposure condition were then shown graphs of the response distributions for the sample that they belonged to, as well as a brief passage. The passage essentially explained to the participants that the graphs represented responses from other people who matched their artistic preference and demographic background and that people who share these commonalities also typically share similar psychological tendencies. Finally, participants responded to each of the initial items again after seeing this information. The persuasive argument condition had the same format as the first condition, except instead of being showed the results of the other participants from their sample, they were presented with persuasive arguments from other participants in their sample. He also matched the number of opposing and supporting arguments for each of the four items with the means for each sample to ensure that participants in this condition felt a similar amounts of group pressure.

The research question of the experiment was if there was an effect of a discredited eyewitness on jurors’ verdicts. During this study, we were replicating and testing the participants that were asked to assume the role of a juror as they read three scenarios and if there was effects of a discredited eyewitness on a juror’s verdicts. For suspicious individuals, they are discredited eyewitness jurors and may react as well as being less likely to convict. For naive people, it didn’t matter, the jurors were still convicting, as well as ignoring the fact that it is very powerful to say “I saw this”. The results of this experimental study were almost exact to what the class as well as myself

The teachers were not aware that the learner and investigator were working together and no shocks were administered as well as purposely given the wrong answers to pretend to be hurt. The purpose of this study was to determine how far humans will go when an authority figure orders them to hurt another person.

The Stanford prison experiment overview and the variables involved The Stanford prison experiment was a research experiment conducted by Dr. Philip Zimbardo in 1971 at Stanford University. The experiment involved male college students and the goal was to be able to understand the behaviour between prisoners and guards within a prison setting. The mock prison was set up in the basement of Stanford University and an ad was created with information on the experiment offering the college students fifteen dollars a day to participate in the study. A total of seventy-five male applicants applied to be a part of the study but after conducting numerous psychological tests on the applicants only twenty-four proved to be successful.

One might think that this experiment will stimulate the new research in the area of human obedience, but this did not occur. Despite the difficulties and the courage of Burger to conduct a partial replication of the original study, it did not produce any different outcomes and did not spark any new ideas in psychology (Burger, 2009). Instead, the researcher had to deal with an enormous amount of different commentaries and controversy. My main rationale for disapproving the Burger’s study is ethical characteristics of the Milgram paradigm. More specifically, now we have the Ethical Rules of the APA, which tell us that researchers should honor rights of participants to privacy, confidentiality and the right to withdraw the experiment. However, Milgram’s paradigm clearly challenges these fundamental rights and creates even more ethical dilemmas. Another rationale that I can include is the infliction of increasing pain on an unwilling participant, a characteristic that is unacceptable in modern psychological studies. Therefore, I would disapprove such experiment, because of ethical non-compliance and little contribution to the field. As for me, I view following ethical practices in my dissertation project work as a crucial element for success. It will allow me to produce reliable, meaningful and relevant scholarly data that would not be a subject to ethical

All 464 participants were given a questionnaire that asked participants to evaluate their experience in research studies and if they had ever felt harm in a study. Based on participant’s answers, participants were separated into groups based on the level of harm they had previously experiences. The results indicate that participants who had previously been in a deception study rated their experience as more positive than participants whom had never participated in a deception study. In response to Smith and Richardson, Rubin (1985) believe that the data presented by Smith and Richardson do not support the conclusions they made in their paper. Harm is demonstrated in their data, but they fail to account for this, instead a split of participant’s data is done to eliminate the role of

Takes place at the orphanage Lauren and Cora were raised in. Right now we are in the kitchen.

would be contextualized by an outsider, with completely different social constraints. By recognizing this inevitable reframing as a potential source of harm to the participants, the researcher could address and potentially avoid crossing the line between reporting his findings appropriately without betraying the confidence bestowed on him.

This experiment is a single blinded experiment. A lot of consideration was taken when picking the guards and the prisoners. All of the subjects were asked about their history with violence, personal history, and religion. Test conductors even tested their heart rates while watching videos of shootings, deaths, accidents, protests, wars, and animals hurting other animals. Test conductors also took into consideration the fact that the inmates had walked in peace marches that often turned violent. This simple test would promote the school of thought called psychoanalysis because some of them would have a positive unconscious thoughts towards the violence while other had positive. This is similar to the experiment where a teacher separated a

(2013) could be reliable when the participants knew that they were part of a research and they were not guilty in true sense. The interview technique was also compromised as the same scripted interviews were conducted every time. In real life the interviews are not scripted and do not go smoothly as per one’s expectations. The variations in the findings could also be due to the factor that participants were not in a simulated environment. The statements of truth-tellers were also changed with evidence disclosure which makes one more ambiguous about the findings. The study of Luke et al. (2013) was quite comprehensive, but perhaps it can further expand on the SUE approach.

The purpose of this study was to test which two scenarios carried a higher magnitude of internalization and innocent confession: 1) being told there was (manipulated) video evidence or 2) being shown (manipulated) video evidence that a person had committed an act.

“No, I want my mom back”, I balled. Tears chilled my face in the cold fall wind. “ mum, mum”, I called in vain. Hurting my throat for nothing. “ I need to calm down, now”, I mumbled